NSA surveillance needs better oversight

President Obama wants us to trust that our government will not abuse the massive collection of phone call records and Internet data by the National Security Agency.

We don't. And we shouldn't. There simply isn't enough meaningful oversight in place to assure us the information will not be used improperly. That has to change.

Obama's now-famous line that "Nobody is listening to your phone calls" contained more than a hint of disdain, as if Americans concerned about the surveillance exposed by leaker Edward Snowden were nothing more than crazed conspiracy theorists. Yet it was Obama and his fellow Democrats who were highly critical of similar NSA spying exposed under former President Bush in 2006.

In truth, the vast majority of Americans can be comforted by the fact that their lives are far too boring to interest our government. Spies aren't sitting around scrutinizing the latest church gossip from small-town Nebraska or catching up on the twentysomething social scene in Manhattan. The black helicopters won't come swooping in because you dared to put up a Republican campaign sign on your lawn.

But, somewhere out there in the vast unknown of the American populace is a large gray area of citizens in whom the administration may indeed have interest, not because of their potential involvement in terrorist activities or other criminal behavior, but because of their politics. When a government has this much unfettered power to track phone and Internet activity, domestic and foreign, it isn't hard to imagine an easy leap to misuse of that information against political enemies. All it takes are a few rogue elements, as was supposedly the case with the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups, or the Department of Justice obtaining phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Obama's defenders insist the president cannot reasonably be held accountable for every misstep that occurs within the vast government structure beneath him. It's a fair argument, but that also renders meaningless his assurances about the NSA, because he doesn't know.

What's needed here is genuine scrutiny of intelligence operations. Oversight exists - in name at least - from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Senate and House intelligence committees, but those activities are bathed in secrecy. The court also appears to be of little effect, reportedly turning down just 11 of more than 30,000 government requests for surveillance authority over 34 years. Obama's supporters say his administration's surveillance stands in contrast to the Bush-era activity because it had legal approval, but that's of little consequence - it came from the rubber-stamp surveillance court.

Despite all of these concerns, however, Snowden is no hero. While there was arguably value to the public in exposing the program, we also don't know to what degree national security has been jeopardized by the leaks. More importantly, however, the nation ultimately suffers if individual Americans with sensitive government jobs start deciding for themselves whether a particular government program is justifiable, because they won't always be right. Snowden needs to pay a stiff price.

Obama says he welcomes a debate on the proper balance of privacy and security. But that discussion cannot conclude with our leaders merely asking us to trust them to use their power judiciously, because we don't. And we shouldn't.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

NSA surveillance needs better oversight

President Obama wants us to trust that our government will not abuse the massive collection of phone call records and Internet data by the National Security Agency.

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Real Deals

Sales, coupons, circulars and more from your favorite Morris County area retailers.